With The World Environment Day Conference.....

"Stan de SD" wrote:

"Disgruntled Customer" wrote
"Jack May" enscribed:
"Disgruntled Customer" wrote

I've heard evidence like this before. It's the same evidence that blacks
can't be intelligent. I am amazed, though, at your ability to keep talking
with your boots jammed all the way down your esophagus.

I assumed some one would take a cheap shot by playing the race card to try
and squelch an honest discussion and free speech.

I've noticed this new tactic among bigots over the last....well, since
Bush was selected.

Nice to know that you Lefties haven't changed - you're still a bunch of
bitter, whining, malcontents... :O|

"Disgruntled Customer" is disgruntled with life.

Disgruntled Customer wrote:

"Stan de SD" enscribed:


that they would otherwise be happy to hire right away on "hold" until they


Which often happen to be people who look like them. Hence the problem.


can shop around for more "minorities" to keep people such as yourself from


God forbid you consider all qualified candidates instead of just the ones that look like you.


I guess being prejudiced against people who are not qualified is wrong, so


How come people who don't look like you are never qualified?


Give it up. In my last case the administrator who mucked up the hiring
wanted a person who looked like him. The ones we wanted to consider
looked nothing like either me or the two persons who did the initial
screening. Bias works in many ways.


YOUR concept is definitely idiotic. You ignore the fact that there are
different levels of aptitudes, abilities, and even interest in given areas
among different groups, then scream "racism" when the outcome isn't


Congress doesn't agree with you. The only people who agree with you are other bigots.


"representative". We once had an administrator at a community college who


Colleges face a different situation than employers. You keep diverting by bringing up college issues to rationalize employment discrimination.

--
Feh. Mad as heck.

Disgruntled Customer wrote:

"Stan de SD" enscribed:

"Frank F. Matthews" wrote in message
.. .


The problem comes when there is a rating of the applicants and a clear
difference between some sub groups.

Ah, the issue that DC chooses to ignore...


Why not explain it to Congress and get them to change the law?

--
Feh. Mad as heck.


The issue has nothing to do with the law. In this instance it was
simply the bias of an administrator who decided to ignore some very well
qualified female applicants and push for the consideration of inferior
applicants who had other minority status.

Disgruntled Customer wrote:

"Stan de SD" enscribed:


And those strengths and weaknesses are distributed randomly throughout the

population, occurring equally likely regardless of race, color, creed,
country of origin, or previous state of servitude.

Bull****.


And that is the creed of the racist. Thanks.


--
Feh. Mad as heck.


In this situation you come across as far more of a racist.

In ba.transportation Stan de SD wrote:

....

YOUR concept is definitely idiotic. You ignore the fact that there are
different levels of aptitudes, abilities, and even interest in given areas
among different groups, then scream "racism" when the outcome isn't
"representative". We once had an administrator at a community college who
had a similar mentality to yours. She decried that blacks were
"underrepresented" in students transferring to math and science programs in
the UC and CSU systems, and one of the instructors asked her how she
expected 12% of the students accepted to these schools to be black when only
2-3% of the students in those programs were black to begin with? I recall
that out of nearly 1000 students in the natural sciences department
(Chemistry, Physics, Biology) there were maybe a dozen black students - and
half of those were Africans. Fact of the matter was that black students
simply weren't intrested in that academic track, despite the effort of the
CC to offer all sorts of minority "outreach" programs to minorities.

And why do you suppose that is? And do you see that as a problem,
or should we just shrug our shoulders and move on?

"Disgruntled Customer" wrote in message
...
"Stan de SD" enscribed:

According to Congress merit does not coincide to race, color, creed,
national origin, previous condition of servitude, etc. Which means that if
hiring practice do indeed hire solely on merit, the distribution of
employees will match the distribution of candidates. And that affirmative
action will be unnecessary.

That makes no sense at all and is obviously false. We try to hire
outstanding people from top school but we get applicant that are not
outstanding, average, and below average. We then hire the people that
match our requirements. We don't hire to match the distribution of
applicants. That is certainly legal and we are required to show that we do
not violate the law.

So if the distributions do not match, then to a computable confidence the
hiring is not fair. This is all elementary logic, which undoubtedly why
you cannot follow it.

You have not presented a single argument thus far that your statement can be
proven in anyway. It is obvious that you are not making logical statements.
You are making highly illogical, irrational statements that you have shown
no proof that they can possibly be true.


Do you really believe employers should be allowed to continue unfair
hiring practices in defiance of the law?

What you are stating is not the law and the companies are not in any
violation of the law. It would be very hard to find a company that follows
your rules, but they are continually certified as being in compliance with
the law.

"Frank F. Matthews" wrote in message
...


The issue has nothing to do with the law. In this instance it was simply
the bias of an administrator who decided to ignore some very well
qualified female applicants and push for the consideration of inferior
applicants who had other minority status.

What you stated that is two Ph.D candidates in Math were not hired. Ph.D in
math seldom have the skills required for industry and have a difficult time
finding work in industry. To find work, most math major have to take
courses in engineering or some other field that can give them useful skills.

Qualification for employment will depend a lot on what areas of specialty
the Ph.Ds are in. Math specialties that are based on proving theorems is
of little value to industry.

The more modern culture in math is for example trying develop computer
algorithms that can prove if software or a chip is error free. That is
potentially more useful to industry, but the goal is probably so far off
that it probably not worth the investment in company funds to continue the
research.

My guess is that you became blinded by Ph.d qualifications and made a
serious mistake in wanting to hire the two women. I would probably also
consider your decision as a hiring blunder and take steps to correct that
mistake.

Companies are not extensions of University Ph.D programs. Companies have to
produce profitable products, not research papers.

"Disgruntled Customer" wrote in message
...
And those strengths and weaknesses are distributed randomly throughout the
population, occurring equally likely regardless of race, color, creed,
country of origin, or previous state of servitude. That means if a company
is being fair the distribution of promotions will show no bias towards
race, color, creed, etc.

We know for a fact that the strengths and weaknesses are not randomly
distributed and can not be expected to be randomly distributed unless it can
be proven that genetics is a lie and genetics can have no effects on people.

Your view assumes that genetics don't exist. Such a view is clearly
absurd.

The genetic basis of effect on all aspects of human characteristics is a
widely studied area with many papers being published in the Scientific
literature. The research is being done so that we can understand the
effects, not foolishly say they don't exist, when the effects shown in the
data are clearly present.

You may have noticed that a drug was approved for blacks only because it was
only effective for a particular genetic characteristics of blacks. Should
doctors be charged with racism if they treat blacks with heart problems
differently than other people with heart trouble?

So would it be racist to produce that blacks only drug to reduce hear
attacks, or would it be racist to not produce the drug and let more blacks
die of heart attacks?

A lot of the genetic difference between people being found to be very
important in treating people. With your absurd view of reality, I guess you
would make illegal to study those difference and just let people die.

"Frank F. Matthews" wrote in message
...

In this situation you come across as far more of a racist.

True, but there is a possibility that he has been taught in a humanities
education culture. For the most part the humanities strongly reject
genetics as having any effect on the characteristics of people .

They are the last hold out on the strongly disproved theory that people are
born as a blank slate and only are molded by the environment. It is a very
ignorant thing to believe, but the humanities have extreme difficulty
believing that everyone can not be the same.

"Disgruntled Customer" wrote in message
...
"Stan de SD" enscribed:

that they would otherwise be happy to hire right away on "hold" until
they

Which often happen to be people who look like them. Hence the problem.

An assumption on your part, unsubstantiated by evidence.

can shop around for more "minorities" to keep people such as yourself
from

See above...

God forbid you consider all qualified candidates instead of just the ones
that look like you.

I guess being prejudiced against people who are not qualified is wrong,
so

How come people who don't look like you are never qualified?

Do you have proof of that? Didn't think so.

YOUR concept is definitely idiotic. You ignore the fact that there are
different levels of aptitudes, abilities, and even interest in given
areas
among different groups, then scream "racism" when the outcome isn't

Congress doesn't agree with you. The only people who agree with you are
other bigots.

Another fine example of Lefty Liberal circular reasoning...


"representative". We once had an administrator at a community college
who

Colleges face a different situation than employers. You keep diverting by
bringing up college issues to rationalize employment discrimination.

No, I bring it up as an example of political correctness run amuck....

Feh. Mad as heck.

No, stupid as hell...